I agree that my response to your question is just my personal opinion. However, if I wanted to respond to your queries with a single statement, it is because the Bible satisfactorily explains physical science.

In my response to Lord Elevation, I wrote the following words, and supplemented them with YouTube links which supported my argument:

Hi Lord Elevation:

Thank you for your kind words.

In response to your query, I believe that I exist because I was created by God.

I have read the Old Testament, which is sacred to Jews (i.e., without reading it in light of the New Testament, as Christians, such as myself, do), the Quran, which is held as sacrosanct by Muslims, the Upanishads, which Hindus take as a collection of divinely inspired writings, and the Vedas, the anthology of which is considered by Buddhists as holy. As a Christian, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. One of my reasons for investing as much faith as I do in Scripture is that the Bible can provide the strongest explanation for events which occur in our world. Please refer to the links above to see the raison d' etre I feel the way I do about this particular subject. One of my strongest opinions for believing in creation science, however, is the existence of black holes, which scientists proved the validity of on Eath in a CERN particle accelerator. Black holes show that some principles in the Bible considered by certain persons as unfathomable--such as infinitely hot light (blue-shifted light), and bottomless pits (it takes an infinite amount of time to reach the singularity of a black hole)--are possible.

It is like you are trapped in the 15th century, and all you have to read is the Bible and Aristotle, and science is mere philosophy to you. We're in the 21st century now. Things are different. Catch up.

Also, you know that there are other books out there than the holy books right?

I believe that we come from God. In the videos above, I have given a reason why I distrust both Big Bang Cosmology and Evolutionary Science. I reject evolution for primarily the following four reasons: 1) organic and inorganic dating methods are inaccurate; 2) we possess no fossil records which contain "transitional forms" to believe that evolution actually transpired; 3) the laws of evolution violate rules of physical science and quantum mechanics; 4) the probability of any life forms evolving in the manner described by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species are rediculous. As far as Big Bang Cosmology is concerned, I find the theory of an orderly universe arising from chaos as unconvincing. This is because it is ludicrous to believe that our well-organized cosmos is spontaneously birthed from nothing. And, while I respect others' philosophies, I find Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology as spiritual forms of evolution or devolution. This can be seen in the fact that each group believes in reincarnation--in which one evolves or devolves based one's deeds during his or her previous life--the claims of which are void of any empirical data that validate such claims.

I am going to give YouTube videos which illustrate why God exist, the first of which regards the massive Christian conversion rate in China (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxX2_D11qBw). The secularized philosopher might wonder how such faith comes about, especially in a land where members of House Churches are harrassed, imprisoned, beaten, or killed. The answer is that Chinese citizens, at an astounding rate, are choosing to value eternal Heavenly rewards over any temporal thing which this finite world might offer. Since China, in her decorated past, has never experienced a Christian conversion rate as high as our contemporary period, this proves that God is demonstrating the power of His saving grace in that country. When a country which once violently resisted Christianity suddenly embraces it, one can label the events transpiring in that geographic location as miraculous. In the second YouTube video, James O. Fraser, an English missionary, preaches the gospel to the Chinese Lisu people; yet, for a decade, all members of that particular Chinese ethnic group reject the Gospel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82oyveG0U8). Frustrated, Fraser admits his failure as a Christian missionary in a letter to his mother. His mother, however, takes "the letter to his Bible study," and some females in England prayed that Fraser's proselytizing efforts might be fruitful. Less than half a year, Fraser finally managed to convert a Chinese Lisu to Christianity. Soon, Chinese Lisus turned to Christianity in exponential proportions. Again, no one can explain why, after ten years of failing to bring Chinese Lisus to Christianity, Fraser succeeded, save to the fact that the event described herein constitutes a miracle.

One also must not forget that Christianity began in the East, rather than the West.

In sum, science can explain much of the natural phenomena surrounding us, but, in order to explain some happenings, faith is needed, rather than anthropology.

1) They are not so inaccurate that you cannot discern a clear and obvious lineage of development. The garbage that creationists usually come up with concerning this issue is just wrong. You are being a dishonest researcher if you fall for this one.2) This is not true. There are countless examples. And it is written all over the planetary genome. You just have to learn how to read nature's secrets.3) This is not true. It is more complex than we can currently understand, yes. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.4) Charles Darwin is not the sole prophet of evolution. That is not how science works, don't you get it?

Evolution is an observation of the apparent biological history of this planet. This is different from an explanation. The idea of natural selection is a theoretical explanation. The truth is that we don't have the full explanation of how life has developed here on Earth. We do have plenty of observations, though.

You're a silly guy. You know, I haven't told you that God doesn't exist.

Let me ask you... What do you think about the fact - this fact is maybe the only truly knowable fact you will have for your entire life - that one day you are going to die?

Whenever I work on literary articles, I always try to draw from a variety of primary and second sources of materials. When I do so, I often draw upon a multitude of philosophies, including, but not limited to, Feminism, Marxism, Theology, Psychoanalysis, Deconstruction, Structuralism, Phenomenology, Russian Formalism, Queer Theory, New Criticism, New Historicism, and Platonism. Doing the preceeding assures that my paper will be "well-rounded." Although I do not agree with many of the secular theories which I read about, I do not hesitate to incorporate them into the paper since it allows readers of my exegesis to comprehend my interpretion of the work which I analyzed in profundity

The theories of Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution, on the other hand, are not just "fodder" for literary discussion. Once again, a person can hold his or her opinion about the formation of our cosmos and humanity, but the "burden of proof" for substantiating one's claims is much greater in the sciences than it is in the humanities. In fact, I underwent the same steps described above when I tested, using the many metaphysical and scientific critical instruments available to me at that time to interpret my discoveries, and came to the conclusion that belief in a Big Bang or the evolution of humans from primates were both physically and mathematically infeasible. I did, however, arrive at the beliefs that 1) God created the cosmos, and everything, organic or inorganic, which resides within it, and 2) no form of "macroevolution" has ever transpired on this Earth. If you insist that creation science is wrong while Big Bang Cosmology and Darwinism is right, then I have no qualms about your convictions. I think at this juncture we should just "agree to diasgree."

As far as Big Bang Cosmology is concerned, I find the theory of an orderly universe arising from chaos as unconvincing. This is because it is ludicrous to believe that our well-organized cosmos is spontaneously birthed from nothing.

QP, you are too concerned about the appearance of your reasoning and the persuasiveness of your speech to have any sort of insightful conversation. You are a cleverly trained monkey and nothing more. Thinking for yourself means so much more than making a silly thought chart of different -isms. That doesn't convince me you have any idea of what you are talking about.

You are never going to be "right." It doesn't work like that. And you seem more concerned with being right than with finding the truth. Do you understand the subtle but massive difference between the two? The truth is more immense and mysterious and elusive than you can imagine.

First of all, I am going to prove that my thoughts on Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution derivate from my personal examination of my cosmos, rather than ventriloquism which rehashes other's beliefs. Basically, people fall into three qroups: evolutionists, quasi-evolutionists, and creationists. Evolutionists, who are often referred to as Darwinists, believe that the cosmos originated from a Big Bang, and the resulting matter spewed from the exlosion alluded to herein evolved over a large period of time. Quasi-evolutionists, who are often called Old Earth Creationists, opine that a Creator designed our universe, and permitted it to evolve over enormous amounts of time. Creationists, who are often labeled as Young Earth Creationists, posit that God constructed our cosmos a short while ago, and designed matter in a specified fashion, the design of which continues to this day with no major alterations in form. Nevertheless, in school systems, the theory of evolution are included in the school science cirriculum, but the philosophies of quasi-evolution and creation are often excluded from syllabi. Although I am a staunch creationist, I believe that students should be exposed to the philosophies of evolution, quasi-evolution, and creation. All science teachers have to do is teach the doctrines of each group, and explain their relative strengths and weaknesses to their pupils. This way, science instructors can present evidence in an unbiased manner, and allow students to decide whether they want to be a Darwinist, an Old Earth Creationist, or a Young Earth Creationist. Doing so will counteract the tendency to proselytize only the creed of Darwinism to students in hopes of making them converts to that particular metaphysical theory.

Thinking for yourself means so much more than making a silly thought chart of different -isms. That doesn't convince me you have any idea of what you are talking about.

QuotidianPerfection wrote:

Basically, people fall into three qroups: evolutionists, quasi-evolutionists, and creationists.

*facepalm*

Amazing.

Read this: Charles Darwin did not start the atheistic religion of science which teaches that all life is meaningless matter that rose out of emptiness and chaos. All he did was make observations on the biological diversity of this planet, and then construct a theory to explain the observed patterns. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, much less the origin of the universe. So stop talking about it like it is that way. It makes you appear laughably ignorant. And for someone so concerned about appearances, this should be important to you.

It is interesting that Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Galileo Galilei, and Louis Pasteur were all creation scientists. These individuals made contributions to science in the respective categories of physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology.

Now, let me respond to your commentary. You wrote that "Charles Darwin did not start the atheistic religion of science which teaches that all life is meaningless matter that rose out of emptiness and chaos. All he did was make observations on the biological diversity of this planet, and then construct a theory to explain the observed patterns." Truth be told, as medical physician Dr. Michael Girouard of the Institute of Creation Science (ICR) points out in a Christian Answers YouTube video, Darwin was far more qualified to speak on theological issues rather than on scientific concerns. This is because, as Dr. Giroaurd explains, Darwin was more thoroughly educated in the field of theology than the area of science. Consequently, as Dr. Girouard posits, while Darwin proved to be an astute observe of events which transpired in his environment, his lack of familiarity with the scientific method often led to him analyzing information incorrectly, which effectuated in Darwin drawing erroneous conclusions about what he observed.

You also point out that evolution and the origin of our universe are two separate issues, one which I fail to draw a distinction between. However, i have, in my past posts, spoken of two distinct scientidic theories which I disagree with: Big Bang Cosmology (a Big Bang explosion caused our universe to come into existence), and evolution (humanity evolved from single-celled organisms). While I believe neither to be true, I have always taken care to avoid collapsing these dual postulations into one conglomerate hypothesis. My reason for rejecting the Big Bang is that I find it difficult to believe that our cosmos suddenly emerged from nothing; I find it exponentially more tenable that an Infinite Creator scuplted our universe from nothing. Additionally, I remain unconvinced that we somehow progressed from simplistic organisms to human beings. Even if we, for argument's sake, assume that God's creative hand is involved in shaping the aforementioned matter, it is unreasonable to accept the doctrine that humans, who are moral creatures, can derivate from lower ranked amoral organisms. Given this scenario, I would have to conclude that humans are endowed with responsibility because God instilled a sense of right and wrong in every angel and human being when He created them.

By the way, although I always try to be polite to fellow posters, and answer their questions, I am relatively unconcerned about whether I breach rules of political correctness, or if a certain perspective of mine is viewed negatively by some posters.

Take care, and, if you are interested in a Biblical Book where Ecclesiastes the Philospher arrives at the opinion that life is void of any meaning--as stated in the preface to Ecclesiastes in many Catholic Bibles (which I find laden with translational errors)--read Ecclesiastes.

Your endless categorizing and score-counting is anathema to meaningful thought. Whoever trained you was also deeply ignorant. I mean, holy shit, how many times do I have to tell you that the theory of evolution is bigger than Charles Darwin? Yet you keep talking about him, like it means something. Like if you can take down Darwin, that takes down the whole theory. And now you have begun to keep score on Enlightenment-era scientists that you can sloppily label creationists.

Do you honestly think philosophy is like a multiple choice test? Do you honestly think the universe is that simple? What if the universe is more complex than it having a beginning and ending?

Why can't you talk about ideas? Not ideas about ideas, not the people that come up with ideas, not -isms, not the strange sociocultural-scientific-esque nonsense of whatever fucking literary establishment you crawled out from, but the ideas themselves.

And do you honestly think that you are not an animal? Have you ever gotten to know an animal? Do you know that empathy is a biological process that is not unique to human beings? Do you know that some people are born without this faculty (psychopaths), and are never able to develop a sense of morality?

I don't even care that you believe whatever the fuck you believe about science. At this point, I am just curious how a well-trained monkey like you would approach deeper questions. Like the one I asked earlier about death. I don't even know if you read it.

Let's talk reasonably for a moment. I will provide you with one instance where Evolutionists (I will, for the time, eliminate Charles Darwin from the picture) actually contradict themselves: morality. While some Evolutionists claim that their theory does not provide justification for treating anyone in a subhuman fashion in order to attain personal prestige and power (e.g., American slaveholders, and Final Solution adherents), the entire model of evolution is contingent on a survival of the fittest type struggle whereby two organisms battle for the future procurement of their species. In time, weak life forms are elimated by stronger living things--that is, organisms which are better suited to adapt to their environment. I hardly see any sort of scrupulousness inherent in this form of struggle.

As far as the topic of death is concerned, I acknowledge that some individuals deny the hereafter, or are uncertain about the prospect of an afterlife. I, however, happen to believe that life extends beyond death. It should be duly noted that I am not the first individual to elicit such responses from atheists and agnostics, as the existence of a Supreme Being has always been a hotly debated topic.

One of the problems with evolutionists is their causal reason is flawed. In other words, the assume that Y derivates X without examining other factors, which is tantamount to saying that all quadratic equations result in one solution, when in reality, the aforementioned will yield two answers.

In order to betten enlighten you about the limit of modern etiology in science, I wrote a review, hopefully for your benefit, "A Critique of Dean L. Gano’s 'Brief History and Critique of Causation.'" Please read this analysis carefully, as it might explain why you are often eager to attack Creatonist perspectives without considering the evidence which they present. (This particular analysis is unpublished.)

A Critique of Dean L. Gano’s “Brief History and Critique of Causation”

Abstract

Dean L. Gano’s Principium of Causality tries to construct a formula which can account for all causes and effects. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the necessity for pluralism in the etiological realm.

Introduction

Dean L. Gano’s “Brief History and Critique of Causation” attempts to provide a universal answer on how to correct flawed historical etiological models. Gano’s theory, though, shows inconsistency in its use of cause-to-effect proportions, makes presumptions about the finitude of the causal chain, creates a linear causal chain model once one tries to transcend immediate causes to excavate ones which preceded them, and does not address the topic of how interactions can confound one’s appreciation of cause and effect. In this essay, I will, for the most part, forego naming historical causal models, and concentrate almost exclusively on what difficulties arise when using Gano’s prescriptive etiological model, in an order to maintain focus during this discussion.

Analysis

Gano’s Principium of Causation is divided into four axioms:

1. Causes and effects are the same thing seen only at a different point in time.2. Causes and effects are part of an infinite continuum of causes.3. Each effect has at least two causes in the form of actions and conditions.4. An effect exists only if its causes exist at the same point in time and space.

I shall test the validity of each of the absolutes stated above.

I. Gano’s First Principium of Causation

Gano’s First Principium of Causation declares that “Causes and effects are the same thing seen only at a different point in time.” Although I will reserve in-depth commentary on Gano’s Third Principium of Causation for the time in this paper when I deal with that particular topic, I believe that it is necessary to define the two causes which are part and parcel of that particular axiom: “actions” and “conditions.” The term “action” basically refers to what is done to cause something to happen whereas the word “condition” deals with what given circumstances allow an action to yield a specific outcome. For example, Gano notes that St. Thomas Acquinas opined that two causes—an action and conditional cause—are necessary to create a copper statue: 1) the act of molding copper into a specific shape, and 2) the artist which plies the copper to create the sculpture. That being said, it stands to reason that, if Gano’s first causal absolute is accurate, then an action and conditional cause must produce an effect, which must be preceded by a former action and conditional cause that were part of a previous effect. In essence, the molding act discussed earlier, and the sculptor which performs the shaping, can be elided together into the composite cause of the Protean nature of art. Following Gano’s thought process, the shaping power of sculpting, in turn, becomes an effect stemming from an action which created it, and a doer responsible for that action. Thus, if Gano’s first etiological rule was consistent, there should be two main causes for every effect. In different terms, rather than the shaping power of art existing as a single effect, there should be two effects, the sculpting and the sculptor.

I. Criticism of Gano’s First Principium of Causation

Logistically speaking, the model falls to pieces once one attempts to treat causes as an effect of a former cause. Gano argues that causes and effects are interchangeable terms in a sequence of chained events, referring to the fact that an effect is the result of a past cause, but the producer of a future effect. However, if we combine the action of creating with the agent who makes that action possible (i.e., the artist), we are left with the answer that art creates. Now, since two causes have become melded into one effect, Gano’s model becomes confusing, for the reason that events, when treated as a cause, are comprised as two separate things, as opposed to when they are seen as an effect, and only exist as a single element. Put succinctly, once causes are arrived at, they become effects of action and conditional causes, and create a chain of linear sequencing in those respective categories. Formulated in a different way, one should search for what caused the initiation of the art project, and who persuaded the sculptor to do the artwork. Hence, if C is an effect, B is an action cause, and A is a conditional cause, one can trace B and A to other action and conditional effects, but cannot combine them into one effect. If we collapse artistry with its doer, we search for a question which asks the following: what creates the power of art? It should be duly noted that this aesthetic query is wholly divorced from questions which investigate what preceding action permitted the sculpting to transpire, and who persuaded the artist to undertake the sculpting task. The previously alluded to amalgamation is akin to mixing water and oil together—the two categories are incongruous. As shown earlier, combining action and conditional causes into one cause changes the nature of the question asked so that the query raised by the whole is entirely different than the one begged by its parts. Consequently, no one can arise at a past primary effect by blending B and A together. The question answered by combining B and A together will lead one to an experience which is outside the scope of what one wants to comprehend. Gano’s first causal absolute, though, rightly references the fact that effects transpire due to both actions and conditions which permit the specific action to effectuate in a given outcome. Every action, indeed, needs someone or something to serve as a vehicle for carrying out that act so that an effect can occur.

II. Gano’s Second Principium of Causation

Gano’s Second Principium of Causation asserts that “Causes and effects are part of an infinite continuum of causes.” Gano’s second causal absolute is derived by rebutting Aquinas’ cosmological theory, which argues that, if one were to dig deep enough, they would reach “a point in time where nothing exists.” Aquinas took his delineation a step further, reasoning that, if nothing existed in the past, then nothing could exist in the future either. Since our world is currently not a void, Aquinas concluded that God had to create matter to make it that way. Gano, though, criticizes Aquinas’ cosmological model for failing to recognize that causality is an infinite chain extending from the present back into the past, to explain what has happened, and into the future, where present causes will create future effects. Gano opines that his Second Principium of Causation is a superior theory to Aquinas’ cosmological argument, which fails to look at the causal chain in the absence of faith.

II. Criticism of Gano’s Second Principium of Causation

Gano’s second etiological axiom presumes that, since no one can explain if our universe had a beginning and / or an end, causality, in and of itself, must be infinite. Yet, Gano provides no proof as to why causes cannot be finite. In actuality, Gano’s opinion that the causal chain is finite is simply an alternative to Aquinas’ belief that the etiological process itself is limited. Nevertheless, since humans possess no knowledge of certainty as how our world began or will end, it is presumptuous to label Aquinas’ cosmological postulation or Gano’s second causal axiom as correct. It is possible that our universe has beginning and an end, meaning that the causal chain began somewhere in the past, and will discontinue in the future. Another alternative is that our cosmos started with a single cause, which triggered a causal chain that will continue ad infinitum. A third possibility is that our world had no beginning, but a single effect will punctuate its existence. Since Gano’s Second Principium of Causation assumes that time is infinite, one cannot deem that portion of Gano’s etiological chart as adjustable.

III. Gano’s Third Principium of Causation

Gano’s Third Principium of Causation states that “Each effect has at least two causes in the form of actions and conditions.” Again, Gano borrows from Aquinas’ notion that two causes are required to create a sculpture: 1) the act of chiseling copper, and 2) an artist who shapes the copper. Nevertheless, Gano’s third causal axiom differs from Acquinas’ model in the following manner: while Aquinas construes actions and conditions as one conglomerate cause, Gano compartmentalizes both the former and the latter into two separate causes, but one effect, namely, the creative power of sculpting. Gano suggests that past “actions and conditions,” or the sculpting and the sculptor who performs the artwork, forged an “effect,” or created a statue. In keeping with Gano’s third causal axiom, these “actions and conditions” are the “effect,” or the sculpting power of art, which is caused by even earlier “actions and conditions,” such as a previous action that caused the artist to construct the statue, or an individual or individuals who encouraged the sculptor to engage in this project.

III. Criticism of Gano’s Third Principium of Causation

Although I have touched upon the above concern somewhat when I addressed Gano’s First Principium of Causality, I believe that, in order to illustrate the problems associated with Gano’s third causal absolute, a more profound explanation of why I find Gano’s third etiological axiom troublesome is necessary. If effect C, or the sculpture, is made possible by action B, or the process of sculpting, and condition A, or the artist, then we are provided with two outcomes, rather than one, of why the effect occurred. Since action B and condition A are dissimilar, and cannot be blended together to produce a stated effect, specifically, the shaping power of art, one is left with two causes, the shaping of the statue and the molder of the art piece, which have to be traced back into the past in a linear fashion. Put succinctly, Gano’s twofold causality system, which is promoted by his third etiological absolute, rapidly disintegrates once one tries to draw any subsequent multiple causes from action B, or the sculpting process, and condition A, or the artist who designed the sculpture.

IV. Gano’s Fourth Principium of Causation

Gano’s Four Principium of Causation insists that “An effect exists only if its causes exist at the same point in time and space.” According to Gano, “The fourth principle was derived from an engineering tool known as Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), originally developed for Bell Telephone Laboratories for the Minuteman missile system in the early 1960’s." Simply put, Gano thinks that, in order for an effect to take place, the action and condition which forged it must “exist at the same point in time and space.” In the Aquinas example alluded to numerous times throughout this essay, the act of sculpting a statue and the sculptor who builds the design must coexist if a statue is to come into existence. In other words, the combination of two causes present at the same location and time period—and the artist who performs the former actions—effectuates in the creation of a sculpture.

IV. Criticism of Gano’s Fourth Principium of Causation

While Gano’s fourth causal axiom can explain how a given action and condition contribute to a specific outcome, the aforementioned etiological absolute becomes problematic when trying to account for actions and conditions which are the results of interactions. While it is true that one can say that action B, or the process of chiseling, and condition A, or the artist doing the sculpting, caused effect C, or the sculpture, to occur, attempting to trace action B, and condition A back to previous actions and conditions might be difficult, since one or all parts of an interaction might not, when separate, create the same effect as when they are bonded together into a composite whole. As previously discussed, an action has to cause the artist to sculpt, and an individual has to convince the artist to initiate the building process. However, the danger in Gano’s Fourth Principium of Causation is that it assumes that the sculptor harvests his or her present talent from people indigenous to that particular field. It is plausible that that artist of which Aquinas speaks drew his or her influences from painting and metalworking, occupations which are different than sculpting, and used these skills to learn how to ply copper into something aesthetically gratifying to observers. Simply put, the artist might learn the creative part of sculpting from his or her painting experiences, and how to use sculpting tools from his or days training as an apprentice in metalworking. One also cannot assume that one person, perhaps a sculptor by trade, influenced the artist to create a statue. The sculptor might have been partially influenced by a painter to be an artist, and driven in a different direction by another person to take up metalworking as a trade. The artist might feel ungratified by both professions as separate entities, and might find devoting a lifetime to painting or metalworking unfulfilling. Nevertheless, the individual in question could decide that, by combining the artistry of painting with the technical skills of metalworking, he will be able to chisel new and wonderful statues out of copper. Seen in this light, the sculptor’s motivation to create objects from metal might not be an influence derived solely from another person encouraging the would-be sculptor to partake in that profession. This is because, as aforementioned, the sculptor’s love for making figurines out of metal could also be attributed to two separate influences—which the sculptor rolls into one—that encourage the would-be sculptor to become either an artist or metalworker. Hence, Gano’s Fourth Principium of Causation breaks down when we consider that, although action and conditional causes can be composed of a single factor, they can also be comprised of a two or more unrelated factors amalgamated into two specific variables.

Conclusion

In sum, Gano’s model fails to recognize that no single formula or equation can solve all of life’s problems. The mathematician employs many varying formulas and equations when seeking answers to specific queries. The tools used to solve the problem depend on the nature of the question which the mathematician investigates. Likewise, as thinkers, we must look at an effect, and all causes surrounding it, before deciding which etiological model is best suited for tackling it. Hence, while Gano’s desire to create a new instrument for teasing out solutions to problems is commendable, we should also not lose sight of the fact that many causal tools already exist, and that using them correctly, either exclusively, or in tandem with other causal measuring devices, might satisfy many of the questions we have about our surrounding world.

This just proves, contrary to popular belief, that not everyone who can delineate in a deep and complex fashion is an atheist or agnostic. Although I am not a Roman Catholic, I believe that its Church Father, such as Origen, St. Augustine, John Cassian, Augustine of Denmark, Nicholas of Lyra, and St. Thomas Aquinas delineated in a very profound manner. As far as the Protestant Reformers are concerned, I find Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Tyndale, William Perkins, John Bunyan, and Jonathan Edwards as people who possess excellent reasoning skills. It is interesting that Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton changed the way generations which followed them thought about science, even though the first scientist was Roman Catholic, whereas the second scientist was Puritan.

Also, I have always made the point that I do not believe in eradicating Big Bang Theology or the Religion of Evolution from the school system. All I want is alternatives to the two creeds listed above--which, respectively, are Intelligent Design and creation science--to be taught alongside the theories of Evolution and Big Bang cosmology. In other words, science teachers in schools should teach all four postulations mentioned above in an unbiased manner, and allow students to form their own opinions about how our cosmos came into existence and developed based on what they are taught.

I don't take drugs. It seems like whenever certain people who profess to be intellectuals (but are not) have a difficult time with argumentation tactics during a debate, they resort to character assassination. This debate no longer has any meaning. You are completely blinded by political correctness, if there is such a thing, to the point that your politics, rather than your reasoning skills, dominate your arguments.

Hi Lord Elevation: I figured that your next step in your attack against me would be to rail against my creativity. As a result, I am going to post a published poem which illustrates just how creative I am.

By QuotidianPerfection

Escape From Basement Graveyard (May 9, 2012)

I.Treading fearfully on a cement floor,And finding myself lodged in a basement,My shoes glide over a thin filmOf sweat leaking out of my feet,Making my sneakers a wet sponge,Which mops the excess fear all over the cement.

II. Racing against furniture,The legs of flesh attempting to outrunLegs of wood, four slender pieces perspiring tree juice,Shining a polished, gnarled, and knotted base,All four ending in clawed feet, planted in concrete,Ready to rip my ribs from my flesh.The chair raises and curls its sitting cushion slightly,Giving it a slick, sickly, and sinister grin.

III.Light bulbs at first: warm, beating,Insulating my body with heat, blowingLike a Chinook over the light bulbs,My adversary two corners behind me,Sinking its claws into the watery mire.

IV.Almost five minutes later, and all the lightsBegin to fade in unison;Lights are but shower water:Tropical, subtropical, temperate, cool, cold, andFinally icy.

Still in pursuit, light emanating from the bulbsAre all but hot.The bulbs lower in intensity in light,The lights harmoniously dim,And mist hovers over bulbs.

V.No trace of cold is felt,And the flesh of warmth over the bones of coldIs evaporating, and clouds coat the White filaments of the bulbs.Water cools, and treading sweat becomesMore and more unbearable.The lights tone down wattage;The furniture makes a Clump! Clump! Clump! Clump!

VI.Indifferent, call the intensity “light,”For no surplus of heat diffuses through the body.Light bathing the walls in a paint of white is gone.The light becomes yellow, and my feet begin to drownIn the denser water, becoming thicker.

VII.I feel a hint of cold,And occasional water droplets on my head.Shadows flash and flicker for the first time,The heel of my foot bruised against the dense cement.

Visibility of the clawed feet and sinister faceBecomes more and more difficult to see.

VIII.Showering takes precedence, and one dropSplits into twenty-five droplets.For the first time, I can see mud on the floor whileBulb filaments drop watery lightUpon my head.The light is reduced to firefly glows,Baked into brown pits of light,Near-transparent bulbs flood the basement plainsAs the dirty floor freezes, And I watch with eyes glazed with frightAs the bulbs dim again.

IX.The browning fades into blackness;Dark water freezes, making the flickeringShadows permanent,And the flickering light nonexistent.My feet are stuck more than ankle-deepInto permafrost With the water turning into snowflakes.Harmoniously, the music of winter frostShatters the bulbs with a cold front of invisible ice.

Yet, the furniture’s legs are immune to warping with the weather.Behind me, claws approach, or so I imagine,Ready to pounce on the cowering prey, andTear my ribs from my body.

Absolutely! I felt that, after a heated debate which was clearly "headed in the wrong direction," it was time to "lighten things up."

Now, back to the original topic: is Barrack Obama like Adolf Hitler? My answer is yes and no. Obama and Hitler both love political power. However, that is where the similarities end, since Obama is an opportunist, while Hitler is a Social Darwinist.

Take care--I hope you enjoyed my poem!

Best Wishes,QuotidianPerfection

P.S. As far as your "SHAKING MY HEAD [crossed off] SEX MIGHT HEAD" slogan is concerned, I doubt that my girlfriend would like it very much if I engaged in sexual relationships with other women (i.e., besides her).

First of all, I stand 5'9," and weigh 204 LBS., hardly the height and weight you would expect from a troll in a fairy tale. Secondly, if you take the word "troll" to mean "internet troublemaker," I assure you that my life is far to busy to even consider causing problems on a gaming site forum. And, as I have told you multiple times before, I am a Reformed Baptist. Since evil spirits are enemies of the Trinity, any diabolical spirit would, by reason, be my enemy, rather than my friend.

There are four words beginning with the letter "A" which best describe my personality: archaic, arcane, antiquated, and anachronistic. A former professor of mine used the first, third and fourth terms to describe himself, but left out the second term.

Absolutely! I felt that, after a heated debate which was clearly "headed in the wrong direction," it was time to "lighten things up."

Now, back to the original topic: is Barrack Obama like Adolf Hitler? My answer is yes and no. Obama and Hitler both love political power. However, that is where the similarities end, since Obama is an opportunist, while Hitler is a Social Darwinist.

Take care--I hope you enjoyed my poem!

Best Wishes,QuotidianPerfection

P.S. As far as your "SHAKING MY HEAD [crossed off] SEX MIGHT HEAD" slogan is concerned, I doubt that my girlfriend would like it very much if I engaged in sexual relationships with other women (i.e., besides her).

Lord Elevation wrote:

All you've proven to me is that you honestly do not know how to think, and you are ignorant of your ignorance. You are deeply trapped in your carefully constructed reality tunnel.

Whatever, I'm over it.

Take LSD or something.

DUDE.. we were all just applauding you yet once again in chat.... thought you might want to know

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum